Xref: utzoo rec.aviation:12988 sci.space.shuttle:2594
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!homxb!homxc!h16
From: h16@homxc.ATT.COM (D.JACOBOWITZ)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: SR71 to be retired October 1st, rumors regarding SR-71
Message-ID: <5983@homxc.ATT.COM>
Date: 16 Mar 89 15:55:14 GMT
References: <524@gonzo.UUCP> <1475@petsd.UUCP> <13987@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <9667@ihlpl.ATT.COM>
Organization: AT&T BL Holmdel NJ USA
Lines: 15

In article <9667@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, ethiele@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Thiele) writes:
> When I was attending Zoomie U.  (the USAF Academy) the scuttlebutt was
> that the fuel tanks had expansion joints, which would leak on the
> ground.  So SOP was to get airborne on 1/4 tank, make a high Mach
> run to the rendevous with the tanker, letting the expansion joints
> heat up, expanding & sealing the tank, and top off.
> 

I think the reason for taking off light on fuel (50-60% capacity,
I thought), was to increase the safety margin in case of engine
failure during takeoff.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave J.
ark2!dlj
usual disclaimer implied